Live data from Hacker News

The Star Trek Economy

medium.com

121–130 of 240 posts

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#121

I think this is a useless exercise. The economics of Star Trek won't be coherent, because it was pieced together through multiple series and some wishful thinking while retaining certain properties needed for the universe to be interesting. You can't have a TV show about drone ships flying around and beaming back exploration data via subspace. Without Star Trek replicators in the foreseeable future, all the 3d printi…

I've been playing with the idea of a 'karma economy': everyone starts with 1.0 karma. If someone uses a service or product you made, your karma increases by c * (user's karma), where c is some coefficient. Karma also decays over time, but never drops below 1.0. Creators of expensive (scarce) items could hold onto those items until someone with high karma wants one, thus maximizing their own karma gain.

I'm no an economist, so I have no idea if something like this would work, but it's a lot of fun to think about.

Is this similar to eh whuffies from Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom?

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#122
post #72

> If it were, the credit would be too much like money because a) accounting is done in it, b) it is issued by a governing body (like a fiat currency) and c) it is fungible, i.e. you can already buy things with it and if you could buy things with it AND a and b were true, it would pretty much be a currency. By that reasoning, the Joule is the currency of the Federation. a) The article already supposes that "the accoun…

The Joule is basically the currency of the Federation. While most of the time in the Federation people don't use currency and get what they need/want, in Voyager because there suddenly was scarcity again they implemented replicator rationing.

I wasn't the biggest fan of Voyager, I saw episodes here and there so maybe someone can explain this idea to me. I saw a few of the episodes where they described the rationing of replicator usage due to some shortage of something. I never understood this as the replicators are described as transforming a base material into near anything a person asks for which required energy to perform this task.

The ship was the source of the energy and canon suggests that as long as the systems were working properly there was an over-abundance of energy available for use. Granted it wouldn't be a good idea to ask for a cup of tea while the ship had full shields engaged with constant phasers firing during a battle. But during normal warp hops there shouldn't be a problem. If the power system was having problems then it stands to reason that going to warp wouldn't work as it required an immense amount of energy to accomplish. Which is the reason for the massive power system in the first place.

It couldn't be a shortage of base material because just about anything could be used and the ships took advantage of a massive recycling effort that almost everything discarded was transformed back into the base material that was stored on the ship. It would be easy to replace if need be so it had to be an energy shortage of some type.

I always felt the replicator rationing was just a writer's way to excuse Neelix suddenly becoming a cook on the ship for additional storylines. It didn't make sense to me. So, what was the rationale behind the replicator rationing? Did it even make sense?

To be fair, I had lots of problems with Voyager which is apparently why I never cared for it. I probably just couldn't get into the spirit of things to enjoy the show as envisioned.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#123

So, economic models are more or less based on, or at least constrained by, human psychology, right? Communism and socialism don't work because peoples' brains aren't wired to do lots of work for little or no or unequal reward. This isn't restricted to just people, either, it's been observed in monkeys ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0917_030917_... , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0 -- it…

> Capitalism rewards not just work and the investment of capital but also greed and cheating. That implies that socialism and communism do not reward greed and cheating, which is hard to believe.

Cheating by definition leads to undeserved reward. Greed by definition leads to maximal reward.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#124
post #72

> If it were, the credit would be too much like money because a) accounting is done in it, b) it is issued by a governing body (like a fiat currency) and c) it is fungible, i.e. you can already buy things with it and if you could buy things with it AND a and b were true, it would pretty much be a currency. By that reasoning, the Joule is the currency of the Federation. a) The article already supposes that "the accoun…

The Joule is basically the currency of the Federation. While most of the time in the Federation people don't use currency and get what they need/want, in Voyager because there suddenly was scarcity again they implemented replicator rationing.

To be fair, Voyager completely destroyed its own credibility as an interesting story to establish the post-scarcity angle. If you count all the shuttles and torpedoes they lost throughout the series and the continual damage and repair to the ship, it's obvious that one tiny ship must somehow have the capability to produce nearly unlimited output, because otherwise they wouldn't have a ship left after seven years.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Joule is basically the currency of the Federation. While most of the time in the Federation people don't use currency and get what they need/want, in Voyager because there suddenly was scarcity again they implemented replicator rationing.

I wasn't the biggest fan of Voyager, I saw episodes here and there so maybe someone can explain this idea to me. I saw a few of the episodes where they described the rationing of replicator usage due to some shortage of something. I never understood this as the replicators are described as transforming a base material into near anything a person asks for which required energy to perform this task. The ship was the so…

Voyager was completely incoherent.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#126

What are those "we" the author keeps talking about? - "we" actually have the capacity - "we" don't have the will I have the will but don't have the capacity. I am assuming that author also has the will. So, again, who are those "we" that don't have the will? And how is the author planning to make them to go against their will to not have the will?

Probably he means "we" as a generous substitution for "the unwashed and politically unenlightened proliteriat who compose the vast majority of humans".

I also have the will, and we definitely have the capacity right now.

Think of it this way: have you ever wanted to go to the store to buy food, and the store has been out of food? Have you ever been to the computer store to buy a computer and the store has been out of computers? Have you ever been to the doctor's (as scheduled) and the office has been out of medicine? What about housing?

We're already past the technological-industrial barriers required for post-scarcity, just not post-work (yet). What doesn't exist is the general public's will to make this a reality, even though it would certainly benefit them.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great link! One thing that always bothered me about The Federation was how they treated certain worlds and members. Recall the TNG episode Journey's End where the Enterprise is sent to remove what amounted to some 'Space Native Americans' from a planet the Federation had given to Cardassians in a treaty. The inhabitants in question were members of the Federation (with all the rights that was supposed to confer) but t…

To be fair, the planet in Journey's End wasn't a full member but a colony world, which means they don't have the same rights as a full member. Plus, I think they just settled on that planet which would mean the planet isn't under Federation jurisdiction, just the citizenry (provided they're Fed citizens). Additionally, the Cardies have either a similar or better military compared to the Federation, and the treaty hel…

It was never firmly established that the Cardassians alone were a match for the Federation (much less so if the Klingons were involved). If they were, Captain Jellico's aggressive negotiations in "Chain of Command" wouldn't have worked. It's more a question of the Federation bending over backwards to avoid conflict.

In Insurrection, it's established that the rejuvenating radiation from the planet made the crew feel more youthful and fighty.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really enjoying patio11's really irreverant take on the subject, but it's not really necessary that their work be completely useless to support the thesis. Self-actualized people may perform useful work as well. But it's also possible that robots have saved the Federation as many times as human-captained ships. I'd rather believe this than that it's because of the spirit-killing Section 31 being sneaky assholes b…

Bringing up Section 31 is a good pull! There are many enemies in the universe so Star Fleet is important. To name a few there are The Borg, The Makers, The Cardassians, The Romulans, And even the Klingons who are federation members. War-like cultures would still exist even if the Federation believes they themselves have moved beyond that type of thing.

There are many enemies in the universe so Star Fleet is important.

Yes, but they're not enemies like Nazi Germany was an enemy, or like Al Qaeda was an enemy, or even like Bonnie and Clyde were enemies. They're enemies like a hornet's nest is an enemy. (If you're really cynical, they're enemies like the Protoss are an enemy, seen from the perspective of an American playing Starcraft. They exist to make your universe more fun.)

Think of how far ahead of the Klingon Empire the Federation is. They routinely have a single man with delusions of grandeur outwit the entire Klingon race and nobody thinks this is odd. We know that in the logic of the Trek universe if it's the entire Klingon High Command personally at the helm of 100 warbirds versus Wesley Crusher and his high school science project that Wesley is destined to win, right? You don't even need to see the universe from the outside to come to that conclusion. Ask a Ferengi to handicap that contest. He'd tell you "Rules of Acquisition #47: never, ever, ever bet against the humans. There's no profit in it. Ever."

Think of some power multiplier, X, for demonstrating the geometric mean between civilization's level of ability to effect their wishes on the cosmos. Multiplying the Aztecs by Xs gets you the colonial Spaniards. Multiplying the Spaniards by X gets you the US. Multiplying the US by X gets you the lowest starship captain ever depicted in the series. Multiplying them by X gets you to the Klingons. The Federation is still several powers of X beyond them.

This implies that the Federation could probably wipe out everybody else with a for loop, and probably consider that low-intensity conflict resolution. But that wouldn't be fun. Why hit the Borg with the Lance of Judgment when there are still so many stories to tell about how Picard proved that passion and ingenuity beat raw technological dominance? The Federation loves such stories as only a technological superpower can.

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#129
post #3
post #2

It's worth emphasising that a great deal of work in unnecessary for improving net happiness and consumes resources in the process and so undermines long term prosperity.

But without a scarcity (market) economy how do you determine which is which?

It's actually the scarcity economy which prevents us from determining which is which. Because we need to work to get the basic resources needed for living, there is a huge incentive to do whatever sells rather than actually makes things better.

I am neither advocating nor rejecting a basic income as a solution, but you can use it as a thought experiment to consider this. If people didn't need to work, why would they do things that consume resources and make us less happy?

Re: The Star Trek Economy

#130

> But we actually have the capacity to feed them, to feed everyone, even now, even if we don’t have the will. Careful, having the capacity to do something does not mean you should do it. An excellent way to grow a starving population from 80MM people to 800MM people in about 80 years is to feed them (these numbers aren't made up). Then all you have to do is just feed their children, and their children, and their chil…

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/#section=myth-three
Post reply on HN